This is just another example of the consequences of the moronic riddle of "marital property". The fact is that the consequences of this idiocy are largely unpredictable, and depend on: (1) applicable statute in your state; (2) relevant case law and which attorney broaches a particular line of precedence first*(1); (3) local judicial custom in the court where the divorce is filed; (4) whether the law firm representing you has "connections"*(2); (5) if the two attorneys have a "working relationship"*(3); (6) if the judge's wife is in the courtroom.

*1. As you may know, you can find case law to support practically any judgement you wish in a given case. If a judge has already given the slightest sign of agreement with one attorney's argument of case law then any alternative argument becomes essentially unavailable, to the opposing attorney, unless he wants to lose the case--and perhaps every future case in that judge's court. No judge will be made a fool of, even if he is a gold-plated one.

*2. This primarily refers to contributing to the election campaigns of all local judges.

*3. This means that they tacitly coordinate their efforts to mutually maximize their fees.

Can you believe that the solution to all of this vileness is as simple as getting rid of the entire concept of "marital property" in the first place?